This is a review of Wolfgang Simson's "The House Church Book". This book is the condensed version of another of Simson's books, "Houses That Change the World". I came across this book in some of my reading on house churches and thought I'd give it a shot. Simson's goal in this books is to describe house churches and give advice to those looking to start one.
I'll start on a positive note. Simson does correctly identify the unbiblical leadership of institutional churches and how it inevitably leads to a clergy-laity division, even if it's unintended by the leaders. He also presents a decent discussion of the lack of fellowship in institutional churches caused by the 'one man show' and he argues for the necessity of small house churches for real fellowship to be possible. Simson suggests that the maximum size of any individual house church should be about 20-25 in order to maintain close connections. This seems reasonable, and agrees closely with what I've heard from friends in house churches. Finally, I appreciate Simson's discussion of the 'city church' concept, where the local church really should include all likeminded Christians in the city, even if they meet with different groups. In other words, the local church really should be a network of house churches.
In short, Simson seems to understand the big picture of a Biblical model of church. However, he fails miserably when it comes to the details. I'll provide a few salient points. The most serious problems in this book stem from the author's charismatic and ecumenical perspective. Throughout, his outlook leads him to promote and speak well of false teachers such as Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, and especially David Yonggi Cho (who was recently convicted of embezzling from his church).
It should come as no surprise then that Simson is also soft on the gospel. For example, he accepts mass "conversions" of people who are run through a sinner's prayer as genuine, suggesting they would be interested in church if only churches were better. I agree that Biblical churches would tend to promote more interest and zeal in Christians...but those who show no interest in Christ, who have never repented, who have never been born again...they're not Christians at all! Shame on Simson for not recognizing this simple fact.
As if his misunderstanding the gospel wasn't bad enough, Simon's charismatic errors lead him to nearly undo his main thesis in the second half of the book. Early on, he correctly identifies key issues with the way leadership is done in institutional churches, but he makes those very same mistakes when he describes house church leadership. He describes essentially every leadership position as being outside of and separate from 'the flock'. In other words, he correctly rails against the aloof single man leading a show, but goes on to suggest that leadership should be several aloof men who lead from a distance (p.66-69). How does this make a difference?
In reality, church leaders are supposed to function within the body, leading mainly by example (1 Peter 5). For this to occur, leaders should not be considered as scouts walking a mile ahead, calling for everyone else to keep up. Rather, leaders should be more like connective tissue, woven throughout the body, connected to each part, helping the body connect with its other parts, providing structure, support, and nourishment. There are no superheroes except Christ. He should be the Head, leading the body, which operates through various roles, but follows him as one.
Simson continues to undermine his own position during his discussion of parachurch structure. Early in the book, he correctly criticizes the normal instutional model of denominations, mega-pastors, and popery. Yet, he goes on to propose that house church networks might be lead by "apostolic regional fathers" at the city, regional, and even national level (p.85). In short, Simson actually supports leadership by superstar, as long as you call them an 'apostle'! Surely the 'apostles' won't have even bigger heads than the 'pastors', right?
At first, this book seems to be a real boon to house churches, but the solutions Simson offer still carry the super-pastor leadership problems that are found in institutional church. Pardon me, I meant super-apostle. In the end, I can't recommend this book. There is some good discussion of the 'big picture' of house churches, but any benefit is drowned in a sea of errors by the time you reach the end.
Thanks for the book review. Not many sound theologians in the house church movement, at least among the ones that get published. Frank Viola teaches the same thing regarding "apostolic" church leadership. He decries the one-man pastorate but replaces it with "apostolic" leadership which, he promises, will fade away once the house churches are able to stand on their own. But the apostles have long since gone to be with the LORD.
ReplyDeleteThere are very few good house church books. People like Viola and Simson on the one hand decry clericalism in the churches, and then they set up a different form of it. The churches just cannot and will not eschew the leadership epitomized by Diotrephes. I would hold up as sterling examples of New Testament eldership George Müller and Henry Craik. Christ's design for the churches is that men like these should be the norm, but they are not only rarely imitated, the eldership is hardly practiced. However Jesus knew all this would come to pass, and yet He builds His church as always. It just isn't built the way men think it is, not in the least. His ways are inscrutable and invincible.